The message was the pastoral letter sent by all US Bishops to the priests in their Dioceses about the recent Obama Administration edict to include contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion services in Church entity-sponsored health plans. This is exactly why the First Amendment is important.

A bad day for the Chock Full O’Nuts crowd.
A Georgia judge ruled, once again, that the President is natural born. The ruling contains references to foreign law (England and Indiana) and the judge is being demonized by the birther crowd.

The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations. Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general.

Even better

Originally, Ms. Taitz indicated to the Court that she would offer the testimony of seven witnesses. However, during her closing argument, Ms. Taitz requested to testify. Ms. Taitz was sworn and began her testimony, but shortly thereafter, the Court requested that Ms. Tatiz step-down and submit any further testimony in writing.

There’s more at stake than people realize. HHS can withdraw completely the rule that the contraceptives be available from insurance plans or she can extend the exemption. If she extends the exemption, this would overrule current state laws requiring contraceptives being made available.

I suspect the church is going for the triumph of federalism over state’s rights.

Currently nine states require employers to provide contraceptives with their prescription insurance plans. If the feds grant an exemption, that would the state laws and religious organizations would not have to comply with the state law.

Look at it like the Keystone pipeline, Nebraska does not want it to follow the path it does. If proponents can get the feds to approve it, that over rules Nebraska’s objection and it proceeds.

That state’s rights stuff is all well and good [except when it’s used against]your cause.

Currently nine states require employers to provide contraceptives with their prescription insurance plans. If the feds grant an exemption, that would the state laws and religious organizations would not have to comply with the state law.

The specific reason I questioned it is because it’s the federal government forcing the Catholics.

Obamacare was pushed as exempting religions, etc. However, it’s not that way.

The Obama administration, to justify its widely criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1). In what follows, each White House claim is quoted with a response.

Claim: “Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”

Response: This is not entirely true. To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose. Some churches may have service to the broader community as a major focus, for example, by providing direct service to the poor regardless of faith. Such churches would be denied an exemption precisely because their service to the common good is so great. More importantly, the vast array of other religious organizations – schools, hospitals, universities, charitable institutions – will clearly not be exempt.

Claim: “No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections. For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.”

Response: It is true that these rules directly apply to employers and insurers, not providers, but this is beside the point: The Administration is forcing individuals and institutions, including religious employers, to sponsor and subsidize what they consider immoral. Less directly, the classification of these drugs and procedures as basic “preventive services” will increase pressures on doctors, nurses and pharmacists to provide them in order to participate in private health plans – and no current federal conscience law prevents that from happening. Finally, because the mandate includes abortifacient drugs, it violates one of the “existing conscience protections” (the Weldon amendment) for which the Administration expresses “strong support.”

Claim: “Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”

Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false. All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA). None of these havens is available under the federal mandate. It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption. It is broader: It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion. Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.

Claim: “The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. And as we move forward, our strong partnerships with religious organizations will continue.”

Response: False. There is no “balance” in the final HHS rule—one side has prevailed entirely, as the mandate and exemption remain entirely unchanged from August 2011, despite many thousands of comments filed since then indicating intense opposition. Indeed, the White House Press Secretary declared on January 31, “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here,” so little was placed on that side of the scale.

Obamacare was pushed as exempting religions, etc. However, it’s not that way.

Interesting, this assertion is then [followed] by a number of quotes that essentially [say] “it’s true but”

The specific reason I questioned it is because it’s the federal government forcing the Catholics

Nine states already force Catholics (and other groups) without exemptions. The federal exemptions do not apply to groups already engaged in supplying contraception.

But I digress, the point of my post was that if the RC can convince the administration to exempt religious organizations, that would supersede any state’s laws regarding insurance plans providing contraceptives.
The triumph of federalism over state’s rights.

Scientists at Bournemouth University have announced they have solved the puzzle. There is no need to prepare a welcome for extra-terrestrials. The blue balls are almost certainly sodium polyacrylate or waterlock, an absorbent polymer used in nappies and by florists and gardeners as a way of keeping soil moist.

IIRC, it was a hot issue and Congress passed a two month reprieve to have sufficient time to address it his year. Haven’t seen much talk of it in January, other than Democrats trying to initiate a bill, and it’s well into February. Apparently use of debit cards in gentlemen’s clubs has a higher priority.

Anyone seen a “budget” from our illustrious (gag) POTUS in the last 36 MONTHS?????

Here’s the budget for 2012, a simple internet search can locate the budget for 2011, 2010, etc.
Let me know if I can be of further help, I’m always available to assist those lacking rudimentary google skills. 😉

Here’s the budget for 2012, a simple internet search can locate the budget for 2011, 2010, etc.
Let me know if I can be of further help, I’m always available to assist those lacking rudimentary google skills.

In case you missed it, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia yesterday strongly indicted his fellow Democrats for their failure to produce a budget in — what is it now? — 958 days. (Yes, that’s right. In little more than a month, we’ll have been without a budget for 1,000 days.)

In an appearance on “Morning Joe,” Manchin said no excuse exists for this Democratic inaction — especially, I might add, given that Democrats controlled all three branches of government for the first two years of President Barack Obama’s term and could have crafted a budget entirely to their liking.

I was just reading a story about TBO trying to use Scripture to justify confiscatory taxes. The quote that caught my eye:

To those much is given, much is required.

Most of those from whom he wishes to remove money were not GIVEN their money, most of them earned it. Whether you believe they over-earned is not the question. Whether you get paid $5 or $5M, you have earned it.

Those to whom money is GIVEN are the entitlement crowd. What is being required of them, besides voting for the Democrats?

Interesting, the majority of income in this country is unearned income. In fact it is taxed at a lower tax rate then that those of us laboring in the trenches earn. However, I’m all in support of any attempts to equalize tax rates.

My office assistant works from home until her babysitter arrives. I just walked by her computer, and she’s logged in from her house. It is freaky weird to see the cursor moving on her screen without her sitting there in front of the computer.

Interesting, the majority of income in this country is unearned income. In fact it is taxed at a lower tax rate then that those of us laboring in the trenches earn.

You are a great one for twisting words. You knew what I meant. Even if one is managing a portfolio, it still involves doing something. If nothing else, there is risk involved, and a little bit of brain work, possibly an education (self-learned or publicly educated doesn’t matter).

You are a great one for twisting words. You knew what I meant. Even if one is managing a portfolio, it still involves doing something. If nothing else, there is risk involved, and a little bit of brain work, possibly an education (self-learned or publicly educated doesn’t matter).

Lets also mention that those investments were made using after tax money from wages or other investments.

I believe your quote comes from the National Prayer business that the President attended.

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.
But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

The unearned income vs earned income is the primary contributor when determining confiscatory taxes in the Reagan era Alternative Minimum Tax or efforts since then. Warren Buffet used to discuss how his administrative support paid a higher rate of tax than he did.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

Apparently Mr. Obama’s lack of Christian instruction mirrors your own. Jesus taught that all blessings come from God, and as such our obligation is back to God. He also taught that it’s voluntary. it’s interesting that Mr. Obama seems to ignore a related doctrine “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

As far as the budget goes, the Obama administration has never actually passed a budget. For two years the Democrats had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress and were still so inept that they couldn’t formulate a Budget that they could pass.

Or (more likely) they preferred not to actually have the accountability that comes with a budget to follow. This way they can just pass continuing resolutions and do what they want.

As far as the budget goes, the Obama administration has never actually passed a budget. For two years the Democrats had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress and were still so inept that they couldn’t formulate a Budget that they could pass.

Or (more likely) they preferred not to actually have the accountability that comes with a budget to follow. This way they can just pass continuing resolutions and do what they want.

TRIPLE BINGO!

And anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew that was the EXACT genesis of my sarcastic & completely rhetorical question…………………………….

For banks, approving a sale for less than is owed on the home can cut a year or more off the time it takes to unload a property. From listing to sale, the transactions took about 123 days on average at the end of last year, according to the Campbell/Inside Mortgage Finance HousingPulse Tracking Survey.
Lenders spend an average of 348 days to foreclose in the U.S. and an additional 175 days to sell the property, according to RealtyTrac. In New York, a state that requires court approval for repossessions, it takes about four years to foreclose on a home and then resell it, the company said.
Losses for lenders are about 15 percent lower on the sales than on foreclosures, which can take years to complete while taxes and legal, maintenance and other costs accumulate, according to Moody’s. The deals accounted for 33 percent of financially distressed transactions in November, up from 24 percent a year earlier, said CoreLogic Inc., a Santa Ana, California-based real estate information company.

Just had a lovely salad for lunch. The lettuce, red onion, and arugula came from my garden. I picked a bunch of kale for dinner tonight. Hubby doesn’t fight it so much when I told him how good kale was for his health.

I still need to find a good recipe for the stuff. It’s better if its palatable as well as healthy.

After 2 weeks of work, Gypsy finally got her romp on the pipeline. It was pathetic seeing her prance around with her teeth floating, eyes yellow and paws crossed.

Last week, the windstorm knocked over the power pole on the waste dump we walked through. The lines are laid out and the transformers and electrical what-not smashed. We gave it wide berth, in my younger days I would have kept poking at it and crossing wires to determine if it was live. I’m not sure how I survived my youth.

Yes, I confess I was a basement bomber.
A few lessons in chemistry and I learned [how] to dissolve match heads, boil off the fluid and create matches the size of your fist.
We had a pair of wire cutters that I could use to cut the ends off of shell casings and extract the powder. All went well with center fire ammunition and creation of quite a pile of black powder suitable for use in rocket engines. Then I learned why some ammunition is called rimfire.
Whoosh!
Luckily the back of the casing blew out and the bullet didn’t exit.

When you’re 7 years old the subtleties of gunpowder manufacture consist of 75% salpetre, 15% charcoal and 10% sulphur. We didn’t have the internets then.
When I learned to load shotgun shells for trap shooting at 14 I became familiar with Red Dot.

Sorry, the powder was colored black in some shells and grey in others. There were granularity differences also, as one would expect. And yes, it was all smokeless, but that upsets the flow of the story, perhaps if I said gunpowder, it may have been more poignant for you. 😉

Well then this is worse, when 5 years old I was convinced that the black electrolyte in D cell batteries was gunpowder.
To prove it, I smashed it with a rock and tried to set it on fire using a piece of blue yarn as a fuse.
Nothing happened, but I did discover a black carbon rod that went through the center.

Bottom line is that the difference between what is actually happening and what we are being told is not so much as a gap but a gulf.

Neither that place nor the people in it are worth one drop of GI blood; we need to get the hell out now. After we get all our troops out there needs to be extensive use made of Daisy Cutters and MOABS on all the hot spots of Taliban/Al Quaida activity, ditto for Pakistan.

#54 sarge
Yes, and apparently I was wrong. As Katfish points out his question was rhetorical, when he said

Anyone seen a “budget” from our illustrious (gag) POTUS in the last 36 MONTHS?????

he didn’t mean a budget from the President, he meant that the President was unable to coerce the Congress to pass his budget for 3 years, I clearly missed the sarcasm expressing his disappointment at the President’s negotiating skills. Good thing he has you to stick up for him.
Silly me, I thought he was commenting on the President not submitting his budget during the first week of February as is required.

My guess Boney’s link is Drudge’s Truth, lies and Afghanistan.
The narrative is starting that the Afghans are unwilling to defend themselves, and the best we can do is escape and leave them to their fate, ala South Vietnam.

#67 try this: Ifn that doesn’t work go to Drudge, look on left hand column, 4th entry, this headline:

Lieutenant Colonel Breaks Ranks:

Well worth the read on its own. Couple that with the stories of the Dancing Boys of Afghannistan (one can google it) and the overall stoopidity of the mission (nation building) becomes real clear. That culture is not worth saving; the Brits figured it out as did the Rooskies.

“For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class,” the opinion states.

A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.
Romneycare was also supported by Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor and health policy analyst for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care.
The bill passed by 154-2 in the Massachusetts House and unanimously, 37-0, in the Massachusetts Senate — including the vote of Sen. Scott Brown, who won Teddy Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate in January 2010 by pledging to be the “41st vote against Obamacare.”

Rest assured, she concludes that it’s all Democrats fault, but still there’s some reason in what she writes.

Accuracy in Media will honor Dana Loesch and Sharyl Attkisson for their outstanding contributions to journalism in a ceremony taking place at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference. The Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award is named for AIM’s founder, who was America’s original media watchdog.

CBS is combing through Attkison’s body of work now to discover where she’s been obfuscating the truth. 😉

But I digress, the point of my post was that if the RC can convince the administration to exempt religious organizations, that would supersede any state’s laws regarding insurance plans providing contraceptives.
The triumph of federalism over state’s rights.

I have not read past this post yet and so I do not know if this was responded to already. A big no no of Obamacare is that it in and of itself s states’ rights, which is protected under federalism. Obamacare was sold in a hghly benevolent fashin. It was sodl as something which will not infringe on individual choice at all. If I wanted to keep “[my] doctor”, I would. Also, as Oldtimer pointed out, religions would be exempt from portions of Obamacare mandates. Being exempt does not necessarily mean tha states cannot madate *at the state level* said contraceptive and the morning after pill which can easily be used as an abortifacient (thanx mharper for that word). The only way which Obamacare will states’ rights, which essentially is federalism, is the mere fact that obamacare as it exists s states’ rights. The Catholic Church did not create violations of states’ rights, Obamacare did.

While there is a good argument that those who are Catholic supported Obamacare in the first place should have thought things through better, but that’s a different story.

Ummmmm…………
I believe we are in agreement in most areas. If the Church can get HHS to expand the exemption for religious purposes, this supersedes the laws in those states in which they operate that do not recognize religious exemptions.

Being exempt does not necessarily mean that states cannot madate *at the state level* said contraceptive and the morning after pill which can easily be used as an abortifacient (thanx mharper for that word)

Here we differ, I would posit that the federal government granting an exemption to religious organizations, does indeed state law that proclaims universal coverage.

The issue in this application, is not government control of religion, it’s religion using the power of the federal government to overcome state laws.

I’m too tired to argue the point, but there sure seems to be a universal tendency on this blog to misunderestimate the meaning of the word federalism – irregardless of which political side your are on.

I believe we are in agreement in most areas. If the Church can get HHS to expand the exemption for religious purposes, this supersedes the laws in those states in which they operate that do not recognize religious exemptions.

A great reason Obamacare should never have passed in the first place. I’m not in favor of federal governent superseeding states’ rights; even in the name of “guranteing” constitutional protection but playing by the modern-day rules, Obamacare contradicts itself constitutionally and should have never passed.

Here we differ, I would posit that the federal government granting an exemption to religious organizations, does indeed state law that proclaims universal coverage.

Again, that’s only by modern-day rules we play by. Originally, the constitution did nothnig to states’ rights in any regard and I would love to return to that standard and view of the US Constitution. If states should not interfere in religious organizations (which I don’t), then make sure your state doesn’t for the US Constitution already enumerates that freedom.

The issue in this application, is not government control of religion, it’s religion using the power of the federal government to overcome state laws.

The issue is absolutely government controlling religion. You’re just trying to deflect from that issue and make this an issue which would didivde the Catholic Church from conservatism.

Iron Mary,….If you had NO LIFE you might just do the same. Think about the kid that would give you his/her toys so you would be friends,….YUP I know it’s SAD, but that’s the way it is!……~ Walter Crankcase.

Yanno’ I too kinda’ miss him, we had some great technical conversations, his only problem was that way too many topics went back to the legalization of Pot. I was surprised that the “Hambone” banned him, BUTT he does own the couch and has every right to ban anyone that he wants to.

Piles of sauerkraut tumbled out of a truck on a busy German motorway and quickly froze to the autobahn surface, causing a massive traffic jam near Frankfurt during Tuesday’s morning rush hour, police said.